OK. Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, I am also one of those who think that the 18-35 is not a bad lens given its price.
John On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:26:53 -0000, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Very well, John, now that you have thoroughly explained yourself I see > *exactly* what you mean. So I shall try to respond. > >> That is not the right question. The question is, how do I know that you >> require more than the choice of three focal lengths provided by the FA >> Ltd >> lenses? > > Well, if I required just three focal lengths (be they FA Ltd or close to > them) I would not have bought additional lenses, but I did. > >> Well, there is an obvious answer, which is that there is only one chance >> in many millions that you require only three focal lengths, and that >> they >> just happen to be precisely 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm. So I feel safe taking >> bets on the matter. > > Bet as you please, but I shall not grant you any prizes ;-). > >> But I was going on what you said yourself: "Cotty, I don't have the 21 >> lim. In this range all I have is FAJ 18-35. I don't want to buy 21 lim >> because it is not full frame. So my widest prime is 31 lim that I used." >> >> From this I infer that you would have used a 21 if you had had one, and >> you haven't bought one because it is not full-frame. > > I was eyeing very seriously FA 20/2.8, but decided against it. You see, > John, my photographing goals or tastes or habits change with time. I > used to be very fond of Sigma 18/3.5 with which J.C.O enabled me. I used > to be very fond of FAJ 18-35 that I brought with me from Norway. But I > do realize that most of the time I still shoot in 28-80 range. Yes, > sometimes I take with me longer lenses, some times wider ones. But these > are occasions, not typical events. Thus, indeed I can live without 21 > lim. Again, this is what *seems* to be correct now. What will happen in > the future I shall see and hopefully so will you. > > Remark: I am still very fond of both Sigma 18 and FAJ 18-35 lenses. > >> You also said: "However I find FAJ 18-35 to be completely satisfying my >> wide angle needs for now." Clearly this isn't always true or you would >> have used it here instead of the 31 (I'm assuming you had it with you). > > I wrote it numerous times that my usual style (and so it has been for > several years now, and I tend to believe it is unlikely to change) is to > take just one lens with me on a leisurely walk. I should also mention > that I very much like shooting at apertures close to fully open. This of > course does not apply to zoom lenses (sans Tamron 28-75 which is very > good even wide open). On the same day I also did some indoors shooting > with 31 Ltd. > >> And later you said that in your (perhaps controversial) opinion: "no DA >> lens, be it zoom or prime or even limited prime of the new reduced image >> circle series (21, 40, 70) comes close to the performance of original >> limited lenses (31, 43, 77)." >> >> From this I infer that even if you weren't worried about the image >> circle, >> you still might not buy a DA Ltd on perceived lack-of-quality grounds. > > Hmmm, please don't consider me talking semantics or hair splitting, but > I definitely *dislike* the fact that new series of limited lenses have > rather slow speed. Thus although the new limited lenses seem to yield > good quality pictures they are *slow* for my taste. I find f1.8 of 31 > and 77 limited lenses to be *just right*. Again, this is my personal > taste. > >> But despite this concern for quality you say that you are completely >> satisfied with a cheap, slow, kit zoom to cover all focal lengths below >> 31mm. This I find odd. > > Well, a lens on par with 31 Limited quality wise and way wider, say 21 > mm, covering full frame would be big and expensive. Currently Pentax > offers either FA 20/2.8 (which I almost bought) and DA 21/3.2 (not sure > about the aperture value). Having analyzed my need for focals wider than > what I have, I decided not to buy FA 20/2.8. It would be only illogical > now to buy DA 21. It is not as wide and even slightly slower. There is > big Sigma 20/1.8, but before I hold one such lens in my own arms in > person I shall refrain from putting out any opinion about it. > > Thus, I had to settle for slower zoom lens. My very sample of FAJ 18-35 > is of exceptional optical quality for the price and specifications. > Therefore I said that I am satisfied with this lens. > >> Not all assumptions are of equal worth, and that is especially true in >> this case. When a company replaces almost its entire lens line with >> lenses that do not suit a particular image circle, it is logical to >> assume >> that the company has no plans, short or long term, to revert to that >> particular image circle. The logic is reinforced by the fact that the >> company DOES have firm plans to introduce a digital camera covering a >> rather larger image circle, for which a separate lens line already >> exists. Thus there will be a product for the few who require very high >> resolution. > > I shall not try to produce a different explanation to the facts you > mentioned and arguments you provided. I simply see no point in it. You > and I disagree more or less like Godfrey and I disagree. I find it just > fine. Hope you do the same. > >> Nikon seem to be doing OK without a 35mm-sized sensor. They are another >> company that sees no need for one. Likewise Sony, Olympus, et al. >> Indeed, Olympus believe that even an APS-C sized sensor is >> unnecesssarily >> large. So no camera manufacturer other than Canon thinks a "full-frame" >> sensor is a practicable proposition. > > Fascinating. Why then Leica chose x1.3 sensor from Kodak and not x1.5 > sensor from Sony whereas Sony's sensor has about the same pixel count > and appears to be absolutely fine piece of electronics? And in > retrospect, Leica having much trouble with this Kodak sensor now... Why > was their choice? > >> You may choose to ignore these facts, but please don't suggest that your >> unsupported belief (AKA wishful thinking) carries the same weight as the >> generally accepted assumption that Pentax will not bring out a >> 35mm-sized >> sensor for the K-mount. There simply is no market for it at the price >> it >> would have to sell for, and no need for it because in normal use a 10MP >> sensor provides greater resolution than almost all 35mm film, and with >> acceptable quality. And anyway, who says that APS-C will stop at 10MP? > > It already surpassed 10 MP in Nikon D2X, right? I find term "wishful > thinking" having rather negative taste and tone. However "unsupported > belief" would be quite right. Now, I don't find my belief unsupported. > After all Canon does produce full frame sensors and cameras. Please let > me re-iterate that development of digital photography in my opinion > happens according to Moore's law or variation thereof. No offense and no > pun intended, but Bill Gates himself told us some years ago that 640 Kb > of RAM for personal computer is perfectly fine for all possible needs. > He was quite wrong. Now, of course, if you don't share my opinion about > applicability of Moore's law to digital photography then we're on very > different grounds and again it would make little sense to try to bridge > between these two grounds. > >> I think I see a DA 21mm Ltd in your future. :-) > > May be. May be not. I don't see it, but that does not say that my > eyesight is sharp enough. > > I do hope that I clarified my view somewhat. > > Boris > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
